Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:"Hillary Colluded, not Trump" is a true statement. The basic explanation appears in the OP.
"Voting with Trump" is a meaningless description. I wouldn't justify or criticize when we're talking about one of those enormous pieces of legislation that they love to pass. What went on in the process, who supported or opposed amendments, how much can the minority party do on legislation like this? Bernie could cast a symbolic vote, good for him, he runs for office from Vermont.
If you're okay with some Democratic Senator in a "redder" state being attacked and defeated in an election over "HE VOTED AGAINST A PAY RAISE FOR OUR TROOPS!" then you're probably okay with people who claim to be progressive but who didn't care if Trump was elected in the first place. Oh, wait ...
On the other hand, "Hillary Colluded, not Trump" has a clear meaning. I wouldn't vote for anyone who pushed that line of thinking.
Your position is that if one says what Trump says about collusion that is being "pro-Trump" -- even if what Trump says is true.
But actually your position is hypocritical, because you say that Democrats who say what Trump says about the defense bill are not being "pro-Trump." And you justify this by saying that they really didn't support the bill but they were "forced" to by "politics."
You can't have it both ways. Unless you want to continue being hypocritical.
"Hillary Colluded, not Trump” is not a true statement. We don’t even have to agree on the second half for that not to be a true statement. It’s a lie.
It’s a lie that Trump repeats to cheering crowds. It’s a lie used to support the GOP candidates in the midterm elections. It’s a lie told over and over to make sure that Trump’s policies are continued in the Congress. It’s a lie told to protect Trump and his family from investigations. Anyone who spreads the lie is helping Trump.
Comparing it to the defense bill is something that only clueless people would think is a good argument. I already explained about how it’s a huge package of all sorts of positions. Nobody can say that a legislator would have voted for every single item in a package like that, if they were voted on individually.
Just because Bernie voted against the big package doesn’t mean he’s against everything in it, including better pay for people serving in the military. I would be a jerk (or, worse a Trumpist troll) if I accused him of being against better pay, or any other positive element of the large piece of legislation. You would defend Bernie against any such claim – even though it’s the exact flip side of the argument you’re making about the Democrats who voted for the big package. That would make you the hypocrite – which is probably why you’re calling other people that first, to try to deflect.
So add calling me “hypocritical” to the list of labels you try to pin on others to deflect from yourself.
One fact you keep trying to avoid is that Trump’s position is, “Hillary Colluded, not Trump”. If you say that’s a true statement, that’s proof that you support a Trump position. Using your “logic”, we can’t rule out that you support any other Trump position unless you specifically say otherwise.
South_Mountaineer said:
"Hillary Colluded, not Trump” is not a true statement. We don’t even have to agree on the second half for that not to be a true statement. It’s a lie.
There's evidence that Hillary colluded but no evidence that Trump colluded. And your rebuttal is . . .
South_Mountaineer said:
It’s a lie that Trump repeats to cheering crowds. It’s a lie used to support the GOP candidates in the midterm elections. It’s a lie told over and over to make sure that Trump’s policies are continued in the Congress. It’s a lie told to protect Trump and his family from investigations.
Repeating the word "lie" doesn't prove something is a lie.
South_Mountaineer said:
Anyone who spreads the lie is helping Trump.
Those who pushed the Trump collusion canard have helped Trump as the canard collapses and the purveyors are discredited and Trump gains credibility. I warned you about this a long time ago.
South_Mountaineer said:
Comparing it to the defense bill is something that only clueless people would think is a good argument. I already explained about how it’s a huge package of all sorts of positions. Nobody can say that a legislator would have voted for every single item in a package like that, if they were voted on individually.
Just because Bernie voted against the big package doesn’t mean he’s against everything in it, including better pay for people serving in the military.
How many among the 40 Democrats who joined forces with Trump were "forced" to do so because they had to vote for higher pay but opposed the obscene spending levels? Who are these Democrats?
South_Mountaineer said:
I would be a jerk (or, worse a Trumpist troll) if I accused him of being against better pay, or any other positive element of the large piece of legislation. You would defend Bernie against any such claim – even though it’s the exact flip side of the argument you’re making about the Democrats who voted for the big package. That would make you the hypocrite – which is probably why you’re calling other people that first, to try to deflect.
So add calling me “hypocritical” to the list of labels you try to pin on others to deflect from yourself.
Once again, you're basing your argument on a fiction -- that 40 Democrats really opposed the Trump priority of obscene military spending, but they were forced to support him so they could vote for military pay increases. Who are those Democrats are where are those statements that they opposed the obscene level of military spending?
South_Mountaineer said:One fact you keep trying to avoid is that Trump’s position is, “Hillary Colluded, not Trump”. If you say that’s a true statement, that’s proof that you support a Trump position. Using your “logic”, we can’t rule out that you support any other Trump position unless you specifically say otherwise.
Trump's position on this issue happens to be correct. His position on virtually everything else is incorrect, including the defense bill. The 40 Democrats who voted for it supported a Trump position and in the process contributed to a terrible distortion of our national priorities.
Lots of Democrats also supported Trump's positions on bombing Syria and moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, in addition to supporting his position on obscene defense spending. According to your "logic" they are also Trump supporters.
So yes, if you call me a Trump supporter for agreeing with his position on collusion, but you deny that Democrats are Trump supporters when they agree with Trump's positions on defense, Syria and Jerusalem, then you are indeed a hypocrite.
ok - what’s the evidence Hillary colluded with Russia? I went to the OP and didn’t see it
nohero said:
jamie said:I think we're long past the time when logical arguments make a difference to Mr. Surovell.
Paul thinks the Fusion GPS hiring = Russia collusion. This beyond ridiculous. Had Bernie won - this discussion wouldn't exist - Bernie and then Dems would have taken over the Fusion intel and Paul would be in 100% support of the dossier.
Has Bernie ever denounced the dossier and claimed that Hillary colluded with Russia?
[Edited to add] Jamie, I have a suggestion for swapping out an avatar.
I think we were at that point 10 years ago.
The second article from the OP was about Ukraine assisting Hillary. The most significant revelation came from a Ukrainian lawmaker who held a news conference to disclose an accounting book that purportedly showed over $12 million set aside for Manafort by the party of the deposed president.
Paul is this the outcome of who colluded more? Do you think this info was similar to the "dirty" dossier? Do you think this info is important to know about a campaign manager?
This is a decent comparison:
"Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin (and) involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services," the article said. "There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine."
So, according to American intelligence agencies, the Kremlin shaped and directed the email hacking of Democrats and subsequent distribution. In contrast, a variety of actors on the Ukrainian side responded to American queries and provided public documents.
Which leads to the other big distinction: The Russians got their materials through cyber-attacks, while the only telling document revealed by a Ukrainian lawmaker was the product of an official investigation.
The fact that we're even talking about this insane comparison is a huge win for Putin.
jamie said:
ok - what’s the evidence Hillary colluded with Russia? I went to the OP and didn’t see it
Not only isn't it there, but there's a year's worth of thread where various posters took apart paulsurovell's various claims about "Hillary bad, not like Trump".
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:There's evidence that Hillary colluded but no evidence that Trump colluded. And your rebuttal is . . .
"Hillary Colluded, not Trump” is not a true statement. We don’t even have to agree on the second half for that not to be a true statement. It’s a lie.
South_Mountaineer said:Repeating the word "lie" doesn't prove something is a lie.
It’s a lie that Trump repeats to cheering crowds. It’s a lie used to support the GOP candidates in the midterm elections. It’s a lie told over and over to make sure that Trump’s policies are continued in the Congress. It’s a lie told to protect Trump and his family from investigations.
South_Mountaineer said:Those who pushed the Trump collusion canard have helped Trump as the canard collapses and the purveyors are discredited and Trump gains credibility. I warned you about this a long time ago.
Anyone who spreads the lie is helping Trump.
South_Mountaineer said:How many among the 40 Democrats who joined forces with Trump were "forced" to do so because they had to vote for higher pay but opposed the obscene spending levels? Who are these Democrats?
Comparing it to the defense bill is something that only clueless people would think is a good argument. I already explained about how it’s a huge package of all sorts of positions. Nobody can say that a legislator would have voted for every single item in a package like that, if they were voted on individually.
Just because Bernie voted against the big package doesn’t mean he’s against everything in it, including better pay for people serving in the military.
South_Mountaineer said:Once again, you're basing your argument on a fiction -- that 40 Democrats really opposed the Trump priority of obscene military spending, but they were forced to support him so they could vote for military pay increases. Who are those Democrats are where are those statements that they opposed the obscene level of military spending?
I would be a jerk (or, worse a Trumpist troll) if I accused him of being against better pay, or any other positive element of the large piece of legislation. You would defend Bernie against any such claim – even though it’s the exact flip side of the argument you’re making about the Democrats who voted for the big package. That would make you the hypocrite – which is probably why you’re calling other people that first, to try to deflect.
So add calling me “hypocritical” to the list of labels you try to pin on others to deflect from yourself.
South_Mountaineer said:Trump's position on this issue happens to be correct. His position on virtually everything else is incorrect, including the defense bill. The 40 Democrats who voted for it supported a Trump position and in the process contributed to a terrible distortion of our national priorities.
One fact you keep trying to avoid is that Trump’s position is, “Hillary Colluded, not Trump”. If you say that’s a true statement, that’s proof that you support a Trump position. Using your “logic”, we can’t rule out that you support any other Trump position unless you specifically say otherwise.
Lots of Democrats also supported Trump's positions on bombing Syria and moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, in addition to supporting his position on obscene defense spending. According to your "logic" they are also Trump supporters.
So yes, if you call me a Trump supporter for agreeing with his position on collusion, but you deny that Democrats are Trump supporters when they agree with Trump's positions on defense, Syria and Jerusalem, then you are indeed a hypocrite.
I already responded on your use of the defense bill, not to mention everything else you wrote about my post. I wouldn't declare Bernie against every single thing in the bill, just like I wouldn't declare the ones voting "Yes" to be for every single thing in the bill. That's why I'm not the one being hypocritical.
South_Mountaineer said:I already responded on your use of the defense bill, not to mention everything else you wrote about my post. I wouldn't declare Bernie against every single thing in the bill, just like I wouldn't declare the ones voting "Yes" to be for every single thing in the bill. That's why I'm not the one being hypocritical.
Yeah, but you didn't cite one fact to back up your allegations. You just keep talking about fictitious Democrats who supported Trump on defense -- but really didn't. Who are they?
And you haven't explained why the Democrats who supported Trump on the Syria bombings and Jerusalem embassy really didn't support Trump. How do you circle that square?
jamie said:
The second article from the OP was about Ukraine assisting Hillary. The most significant revelation came from a Ukrainian lawmaker who held a news conference to disclose an accounting book that purportedly showed over $12 million set aside for Manafort by the party of the deposed president.
Paul is this the outcome of who colluded more? Do you think this info was similar to the "dirty" dossier? Do you think this info is important to know about a campaign manager?
This is a decent comparison:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/12/did-ukraine-try-help-clinton-way-russia-helped-tru/
"Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin (and) involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services," the article said. "There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine."So, according to American intelligence agencies, the Kremlin shaped and directed the email hacking of Democrats and subsequent distribution. In contrast, a variety of actors on the Ukrainian side responded to American queries and provided public documents.Which leads to the other big distinction: The Russians got their materials through cyber-attacks, while the only telling document revealed by a Ukrainian lawmaker was the product of an official investigation.The fact that we're even talking about this insane comparison is a huge win for Putin.
Jamie, Seriously, did you really miss this?
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
Excerpts:
Manafort’s work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC’s arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.
. . . . She said she shared her concern with Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly, and one of his top aides, Oksana Shulyar, during a March 2016 meeting at the Ukrainian Embassy. According to someone briefed on the meeting, Chaly said that Manafort was very much on his radar, but that he wasn’t particularly concerned about the operative’s ties to Trump since he didn’t believe Trump stood much of a chance of winning the GOP nomination, let alone the presidency. .....
. . . . Shulyar vehemently denied working with reporters or with Chalupa on anything related to Trump or Manafort, explaining “we were stormed by many reporters to comment on this subject, but our clear and adamant position was not to give any comment [and] not to interfere into the campaign affairs.”
. . . Shulyar said her work with Chalupa “didn’t involve the campaign,” and she specifically stressed that “We have never worked to research and disseminate damaging information about Donald Trump and Paul Manafort.”
But Andrii Telizhenko, who worked as a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy under Shulyar, said she instructed him to help Chalupa research connections between Trump, Manafort and Russia. “Oksana said that if I had any information, or knew other people who did, then I should contact Chalupa,” recalled Telizhenko, who is now a political consultant in Kiev. “They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa,” he said, adding “Oksana was keeping it all quiet,” but “the embassy worked very closely with” Chalupa.
jamie said:
Can someone translate the excerpt Paul posted and why we should care?
Translation: Collusion between DNC and Ukraine to get dirt on Trump.
In the words of the article:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
Why should we care?: Because we are here to debate Who Colluded More: Hillary or Trump, Or Boris and Bill?
jamie said:
Can someone translate the excerpt Paul posted and why we should care?
We should care only because he's probably approaching the moment when he posts a picture of an iPlane and how it relates to Hillary's campaign.
Bless his heart, he's our Kanye!
paulsurovell said:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
Wow that's a huge nothing burger. Makes sense that there has only been 1 article one the subject.
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:Wow that's a huge nothing burger. Makes sense that there has only been 1 article one the subject.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
Yes, one article on the subject because the mainstream media did not do it's due diligence. More was covered in non-mainstream news. Not the first time there is winking and blinking evidence and they drop the ball cause it does not fit in with their narrative.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:Yeah, but you didn't cite one fact to back up your allegations. You just keep talking about fictitious Democrats who supported Trump on defense -- but really didn't. Who are they?
I already responded on your use of the defense bill, not to mention everything else you wrote about my post. I wouldn't declare Bernie against every single thing in the bill, just like I wouldn't declare the ones voting "Yes" to be for every single thing in the bill. That's why I'm not the one being hypocritical.
And you haven't explained why the Democrats who supported Trump on the Syria bombings and Jerusalem embassy really didn't support Trump. How do you circle that square?
I explained my point of view. Neither of us can point to why each Democrat voted for the bill (or in Bernie's case, against), or what he thought about it, or what different version he also would have supported. You just don't have a point.
Democrats who supported bombing Syria or moving the embassy before Trump aren't "supporting Trump", they're supporting what they supported before Trump. I can't believe I had to write a sentence like that, but there wasn't a simpler way to explain what is a simple concept.
South_Mountaineer said:
paulsurovell said:I explained my point of view. Neither of us can point to why each Democrat voted for the bill (or in Bernie's case, against), or what he thought about it, or what different version he also would have supported. You just don't have a point.
South_Mountaineer said:Yeah, but you didn't cite one fact to back up your allegations. You just keep talking about fictitious Democrats who supported Trump on defense -- but really didn't. Who are they?
I already responded on your use of the defense bill, not to mention everything else you wrote about my post. I wouldn't declare Bernie against every single thing in the bill, just like I wouldn't declare the ones voting "Yes" to be for every single thing in the bill. That's why I'm not the one being hypocritical.
And you haven't explained why the Democrats who supported Trump on the Syria bombings and Jerusalem embassy really didn't support Trump. How do you circle that square?
Sorry, but I'm not pointing "to why each Democrat voted for the bill," you are. I'm only pointing to the fact that 40 Democrats supported Trump by voting for the bill. You tried to excuse them because they allegedly were only voting for part of the bill, but that's only in your imagination -- you've got nothing in the real world to back it up.
South_Mountaineer said:
Democrats who supported bombing Syria or moving the embassy before Trump aren't "supporting Trump", they're supporting what they supported before Trump. I can't believe I had to write a sentence like that, but there wasn't a simpler way to explain what is a simple concept.
Now you're digging yourself into a deeper hole. You say that anyone who supports Trump on a policy isn't really supporting Trump if they supported that policy "before Trump." That means that Sean Hannity doesn't support Trump on immigration, Obamacare, climate change, etc., because Hannity supported those Trump policies long before Trump became a candidate.
Under your "simple concept," Sean Hannity doesn't support Trump.
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:Wow that's a huge nothing burger. Makes sense that there has only been 1 article one the subject.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
What's the huge something-burger that shows Trump colluded with Russia as much as this during the 2016 election?
paulsurovell said:
And you haven't explained why the Democrats who supported Trump on the Syria bombings and Jerusalem embassy really didn't support Trump. How do you circle that square?
That's "square the circle" not "circle the square".
You "circle the square" when you try to get a parking spot by Kings and keep going around Ricalton waiting for someone to pull out.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:What's the huge something-burger that shows Trump colluded with Russia as much as this during the 2016 election?
paulsurovell said:Wow that's a huge nothing burger. Makes sense that there has only been 1 article one the subject.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
There's a big difference between stolen and hacked intel. And getting public info because your opponent hired the likes of Flynn, Manafort and Page. It's amazing that you don't see this. Bernie would have continued with the Fusion research as well, the only difference is that you wouldn't have cared. This is why the story had no wings - except for this subforum and perhaps Greenwald and RT sites.
Good article about Dems running away from Russiagate and -- in the @South_Mountaineer / @nohero world -- "supporting Trump."
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/15/robert-mueller-trump-midterms-897887
"In states like Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, the red-state Democrats are running ads about how closely they work with President Trump,” Gardner said. “So, it’s difficult to talk about an investigation at the same time they’re trying to be his best friend.”
Looks like a lot of Trump supporters in the Democratic Party. And of course if they support Trump they support Putin because we know that everything Trump does is controlled by Putin.
FYI the Mueller investigation won't mean anything until it's conclusion. Hence the void from the election campaign. Midterm races are mostly local on the whole. If Trump was on the ticket - it may get a bit more attention.
paulsurovell said:
Good article about Dems running away from Russiagate and -- in the @South_Mountaineer / @nohero world -- "supporting Trump."
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/15/robert-mueller-trump-midterms-897887
"In states like Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, the red-state Democrats are running ads about how closely they work with President Trump,” Gardner said. “So, it’s difficult to talk about an investigation at the same time they’re trying to be his best friend.”Looks like a lot of Trump supporters in the Democratic Party. And of course if they support Trump they support Putin because we know that everything Trump does is controlled by Putin.
Two thoughts:
1. The quote alone doesn't accurately portray either Cory Gardner position in full, or the overall point of the article. Most important, "working with" the incumbent isn't the same as "supporting" him. The more important point in the article was made by two Republican strategists and Larry Sabato from one of my old stomping grounds:
“I think one of the problems Republicans face is that the Democrats quit harming themselves with Russia and actually started talking to voters about things that matter,” said Mike Shields, the former chief of staff at the Republican National Committee. “I would rather they went back to Russia.”
Political operatives say neither Democrats nor Republicans want to talk about the Mueller probe in no small part because it isn’t breaking through with everyday Americans already deluged by an onslaught of Trump stories.
“People are anesthetized to it,” said Rory McShane, a GOP strategist working on 2018 races in Arizona, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada and Tennessee.
The special counsel’s lack of public commentary also hardly makes for good campaign material, said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
“Mueller is the great sphinx so far,” Sabato said. “No one really knows what he’s thinking or how far his investigation has come. It’s hard to grab onto fog.”
2. I remember when the @paulsurovell/@nan position was "The Democrats aren't running on issues, all they're talking about is Russia!" Now his/her position is "The Democrats aren't running on Russia, all they have are issues!" They're ready to argue either side, depending on what they think will make the Democrats look bad next to Trump. Good job, kids!
nohero said:
paulsurovell said:Two thoughts:
Good article about Dems running away from Russiagate and -- in the @South_Mountaineer / @nohero world -- "supporting Trump."
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/15/robert-mueller-trump-midterms-897887
"In states like Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, the red-state Democrats are running ads about how closely they work with President Trump,” Gardner said. “So, it’s difficult to talk about an investigation at the same time they’re trying to be his best friend.”Looks like a lot of Trump supporters in the Democratic Party. And of course if they support Trump they support Putin because we know that everything Trump does is controlled by Putin.
1. The quote alone doesn't accurately portray either Cory Gardner position in full, or the overall point of the article. Most important, "working with" the incumbent isn't the same as "supporting" him. The more important point in the article was made by two Republican strategists and Larry Sabato from one of my old stomping grounds:
So you have abandoned your mantra that "agreeing" with Trump means "supporting" Trump?
nohero said:
2. I remember when the @paulsurovell/@nan position was "The Democrats aren't running on issues, all they're talking about is Russia!" Now his/her position is "The Democrats aren't running on Russia, all they have are issues!" They're ready to argue either side, depending on what they think will make the Democrats look bad next to Trump. Good job, kids!
What I'm saying is (a) your Russiagate is a fraud and Dems know that voters want nothing to do with it; and (b) some Dems are emphasizing their agreement with Trump on issues -- something you have argued constitutes "supporting Trump."
Exhibit A:
jamie said:
FYI the Mueller investigation won't mean anything until it's conclusion. Hence the void from the election campaign. Midterm races are mostly local on the whole. If Trump was on the ticket - it may get a bit more attention.
So Rachel Maddow's shows haven't meant anything for all these months? And Ari's, and Chris's, Lawrence's and Joy's?
And all the posts on this thread claiming Trump colluded?
In case anybody didn't watch the Joe Donnelly (Dem Senator from IN) video, here's the crucial scene. Looks like he's "supporting Trump" -- according to @nohero / @South_Mountaineer:
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:So you have abandoned your mantra that "agreeing" with Trump means "supporting" Trump?
paulsurovell said:Two thoughts:
Good article about Dems running away from Russiagate and -- in the @South_Mountaineer / @nohero world -- "supporting Trump."
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/15/robert-mueller-trump-midterms-897887
"In states like Missouri, Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, the red-state Democrats are running ads about how closely they work with President Trump,” Gardner said. “So, it’s difficult to talk about an investigation at the same time they’re trying to be his best friend.”Looks like a lot of Trump supporters in the Democratic Party. And of course if they support Trump they support Putin because we know that everything Trump does is controlled by Putin.
1. The quote alone doesn't accurately portray either Cory Gardner position in full, or the overall point of the article. Most important, "working with" the incumbent isn't the same as "supporting" him. The more important point in the article was made by two Republican strategists and Larry Sabato from one of my old stomping grounds:
You're going to have to show me an example of the "mantra" I'm supposedly abandoning. I'm not going to guess which statement I wrote is being incorrectly described by you.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:What I'm saying is (a) your Russiagate is a fraud and Dems know that voters want nothing to do with it; and (b) some Dems are emphasizing their agreement with Trump on issues -- something you have argued constitutes "supporting Trump."
2. I remember when the @paulsurovell/@nan position was "The Democrats aren't running on issues, all they're talking about is Russia!" Now his/her position is "The Democrats aren't running on Russia, all they have are issues!" They're ready to argue either side, depending on what they think will make the Democrats look bad next to Trump. Good job, kids!
Exhibit A:
That's a commercial about a legislator who pushed for legislation, and as part of that he had to make sure to convince the incumbent President to sign it. It's not his fault that Trump is that incumbent. You're blaming him for having to work with Trump, when you should be blaming the people who should have helped to defeat Trump but sat on the sidelines. And now you're all angry about it and lashing out at the Democrats. Good job!
paulsurovell said:
In case anybody didn't watch the Joe Donnelly (Dem Senator from IN) video, here's the crucial scene. Looks like he's "supporting Trump" -- according to @nohero / @South_Mountaineer:
Translation: "If you don't watch the whole thing, it says what I want you to think it says!"
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
And here's yours. That's you hiding behind the mask: